Why Do Hawks Want to Antagonize Russia?

Russia probably deserves much of the criticism from activists and others who don’t like its domestic practices or foreign policy. Activists can get away with ignoring the consequences of what they propose; thinking about overall U.S. national interests isn’t their job. But the purpose of U.S. foreign policy isn’t to give others what we think they deserve [bold mine-DL] — it is to “provide for the common defense,” as stated in the Constitution, something U.S. officials should keep foremost while crafting policy. Making a real enemy of Russia won’t help the United States.

The U.S. is fortunate that Russia is not intent on undermining our interests, which makes it a little odd that so many American hawks insist that this is so and sometimes seem eager to make it so. Consider Syria. Syria hawks see Russian opposition to Western and Arab intervention in the country as proof of Russian antagonism to America, but Russia is at most half-heartedly defending the status quo and continuing its formal policy of objecting to outside interference in other states’ internal affairs. It has committed itself to nothing except occasionally vetoing a resolution at the U.N., and if the U.S. were foolish enough to start bombing Syria it would loudly protest and almost certainly do nothing directly to interfere. Syria hawks pretend to see a determined adversary in Russia, but the reality is that Moscow doesn’t want to do very much for Assad for fear that it might rupture its relationships with Europe and the U.S. The question to ask is: why is there such a desire or need for Russia to be presented as our constant foe? Since it would be harmful to our national interest if Russia were actively hostile, why do so many hawks want to encourage and provoke that hostility?

One reason that hawks tend to encourage and provoke Russian hostility is that they have an overly broad definition of U.S. interests. If one believes, as McCain does, that “our values are our interests and our interests are our values,” there is virtually no limit to what “our interests” can include, and these will extend to the internal politics of Russia and most other states. Most hawks assume that the U.S. has vital interests at stake in virtually every part of the world, so no other major power can exercise influence in its own neighborhood without triggering some alarm. Once hawks have convinced themselves that it is extremely important to the U.S. who is in power in various ex-Soviet republics, for example, any political change that removes their preferred leaders from power will be treated as a Russian “victory” over us. Because many hawks wrongly define U.S. interests in the former Soviet Union in terms of the negation or reduction of Russian influence in the region, improved relations between Moscow and its neighbors are viewed as a threat. The truth is that this properly has little or nothing to do with us.

Hawks also usually exaggerate both foreign threats and the extent to which foreign governments are hostile to us. All of this a recipe for seeing slights, insults, and menaces in other states’ normal pursuit of their own national interests, and it also means that a government’s conduct inside its borders becomes a challenge that the U.S. is supposed to take up and win. Of course, this is not unique to debates over Russia policy, but has repeated itself again and again in debates on Iran, China, or whatever third-rate authoritarian regime that happens to catch our attention this week. The desire to believe the illusion of American omnipotence certainly plays a role as well, since it flatters hawks’ image of America to believe that there is always something that the U.S. can do to compel other governments to do what we want.

Richard W. Bray is quite right: this is about nostalgia for the moral clarity of a death-match with a peer competitor and the defense dollars that competition brought to the military-industrial complex.

Defense contractors can see the writing on the wall. If federal government spending is to be reduced, the Pentagon is the prime target. And rightfully so! But they don’t want the gravy train to end. Another war in the Middle East would suit their purposes admirably.

As a Russian citizen I am happy to see, that Americans write and read pragmatic and emotionless articles, as presented above, regarding Russia-US relations.

But at the same time I am very warned that most of the mainstream media in the US and in the West (EU lands are no exception) produce mainly Russophobic propaganda and speculate over the rising trade and economic ambitions of Russian business. or state companies abroad.

I had visited the US first time in my life last year. My general impressions of New York and Jersey city (that’s where I’ve been) – are generally positive. But, some people don’t even speak English there. And you don’t feel the true American spirit, at least I didn’t. Maybe it is the doom of all the big cities in the world who knows. But I had a chance to speak to the simple American tourist in our hotel (he came from the city which lies 5 hours from NY) I was amazed at how well he was informed about the politics in Europe in general. He was a working man, operating heavy machinery.

Believe me or not but I at todays Russia I feel more safe compared to US . I am literally anxious of being nearby close to your police – I feel they will shoot you down for putting your hand in the pocket or smth like this. Also we don’t have the death penalty in Russia or sentences like 200 year or 300 years in US.

At the same time I want to say, that I have an opportunity to stay and study abroad, openly criticize Putin or whoever is in charge and nothing happened to me so far (Putin is obviously very,very far away from being a Stalin during the Big Terror in Moscow and all over Russia in 1937)

But the main point that present people in power in the US and EU don’t understand is that weak Russia is 1000 times more dangerous for the world than a strong stable state. The country with huge piles of nuclear stocks, very advanced rockets and huge amount of traditional conventional weapons can be a serious threat if it will be helped to collapse to the stage where fanatics can take most of this equipment.

Anyway I would like to thank Paul Saunders for a great article and wish all simple and honest American people good luck and peace to their homes!

It is more complex than that, although the point is valid. This whole thing also has a russophobic flavor to it and it has to do a lot with American exceptionalism, the way it is perceived within United States by hawks.

Please, look at who the biggest donors to these hawks are and who their lobbyist links are with the munitions manufacturers in their districts. That tells you all you need to know in the classic “follow the money” investigation of who benefits.

Conflict is profitable for these interests, whether perceived, real or simply manufactured. I was there, within the military-industrial complex when the Cold War ended and the howls of pain about the Peace Dividend were palpable. There is a class of folks who don’t give a damn except about making money, regardless of how many people are harmed, whether American or foreign.

It’s worth analyzing the hawkish mentality further. It’s certainly aggressive and paranoid in extreme cases, but some of its roots are also strength and nobility. I am reminded of Gibbon’s thesis that loss of civic and martial virtue led to the downfall of Rome, an idea I find compelling. One fact may be indisputable, that Roman power was expanded by imperial hawks. That power almost certainly rested on genuine civic virtues. The question is, are hawks merely parasites on the virtuous body politic, who, drunk with power and passion for the strength of their people, propel them toward over-extension and eventual exhaustion and failure? Or is the hawkish mentality an integral component of virtuous living, full stop? I tend to agree with the first one more than the second, but also know from personal experience that the second is undoubtedly true. The martial, uncompromising pursuit of idealism that hawks embody is a key element of a successful personality. So maybe this is merely the human tragedy, how our greatest successes contain the seeds of their undoing. Of course none of this invalidates the article’s critiques, which I endorse. The McCain type hawkishness you’re talking about, in fact, is a lack of self-control, an aggressiveness untamed by moderating virtues.

I’m glad that you had a mostly-positive impression of our country when you came here. Most Americans are not as hostile to the Russian government, and certainly not towards Russian people, as our politicians and news media. If anything, the main sin is most likely ignorance. I’d also note that nearly all of the US is more affluent and has lower crime rates than Jersey City…

I have long thought that the most significant non-war-related US foreign policy mistake of the last 20 years was to continue to treat Russia as an antagonist even after the fall of Communism. It’s shocking how a country where there was a 2-mile-long line for the first McDonalds location is now one where a large majority of the population will profess to hate America in polls. Our government should have lobbied for Russian admittance to NATO and the EU, forgiven the USSR’s foreign debts (a major contributor to the Russian economic and inflation crises of the 90s), negotiated general conventional and nuclear arms reduction in Europe, and given no harbor to Chechen terrorists.

With regards to Mr. Larison’s point, I think the mentality of hawks is threefold. Of course the most salient point is that the presence of a semi-credible conventional and military boogeyman allows for a justification for extremely bloated military budgets, unnecessary procurement, and a leviathan bureaucracy even in peacetime. The second is a generalized paranoia over any country having more influence than the US over the internal affairs of any country, including on occasion their own, and the third a simple Russophobia inherited from 45 years of Cold War combined with that natural human temptation to kick a dog while it’s down.

and the third a simple Russophobia inherited from 45 years of Cold War combined with that natural human temptation to kick a dog while it’s down.

Actually, Emilio in his post is onto something of substance–US hawks (make no mistake, there are Russian hawks too, however less influential than their US counterparts) represent not only what you, justly, listed but also something of a more fundamental nature. It is messianic role of the United States (sometimes it goes under the name of American exceptionalism) and this messianic role (as most any messianic roles) has at its heart, as one of the major factors, one or another form of militarism and warrior tradition. United States IS not unique in this case, enough to take a look at the concept of the Third Rome (courtesy of Russia), Napoleon, early (Trotsky’s version) Soviet communism and at the most extreme manifestation of messianic driver–Nazism. There are many others. Hawks and militarism are the two sides of the same coin (I abstain here from giving a moral assessment of that–sometimes hawkishness is a positive factor) and their hatred or, sometimes, disdain are symptoms of something hidden very deep. Consider this: for all, very often glorious and admirable, US military history the only nation in the world (and I underscore that) which truly, speaking in layman’s terms, “is not impressed” is Russia. For all 1200 years of their history as a nation (or early–emerging nation) Russians fought–one war after another, often between themselves, often as the wars of conquest, but more often against somebody from the outside. Many Russian military disasters (and there are few of those, Tsushima and first month of Great Patriotic War come to mind immediately) there are more than enough military triumphs. In other words, Russians were never conquered. Nowhere this manifests itself more than in recent history–namely, WW II.

Here is the fact, which demonstrates very well what is going on. The GOP platform written for the Republican National Convention in 2012 contains an astounding (however misplaced, if not altogether strange for some) admission about Russia. Here is how Russia’s paragraph starts in platform:

“The heroism – and the suffering – of the people of Russia over the last century demand the world’s respect. As our allies in their Great Patriotic War, they lost 28 million fighting Nazism.”

Daniel posted about this before GOP convention in 2012. This paragraph gives a good insight into the minds of hawks, granted that GOP platform was written by American exceptionalists. United States today can and does vastly outperform Russia in virtually every facet of human activity–from economy, human capital to healthcare and science etc. Russia and Russians are many things and by far not all of them are good, there are some qualities of the Russian national character which are regrettable at best, malignant at worst. I know, I am Russian myself. But for all Russia’s flaws, and there many of those, one thing which US hawks (and we already established the fact that hawks and warrior tradition are inseparable) cannot match and the thing which, speaking plainly, drives them crazy is Russia’s military history and the fact that she was never conquered. Russia’s military narrative contradicts dramatically to US hawks’ narrative rooted in American messianism and exceptionalism. I want to underscore–this all is a very crude and short description of the issue. Reality, of course, is much more nuanced and complex and I am not here to write dissertation on the issue. But it is, indeed, very difficult to proclaim that democracies “won” the War against Nazism In Europe (and if not for the Americans the French would speak German–one of the most contemptuous memes ever) when 80% of crème de la crème of Wehrmacht have been annihilated on the battlefields of the Eastern Front. The fact which does not seat well with “America won the War” statements. These are those facts (very many of them) which are at the core (together with some other) of hawks’ attitudes towards Russia. In fact, I would put this factor as the most important one and the proof for that is widely available and is in the open. I hope I expressed myself prudently enough.

Ray – – George H. W. Bush had the strategic vision, and common sense, to see that amidst the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US should try to help the Russian Federation preserve its territorial integrity.

Many foolish “hawks” are simply shills for grotesque squandering of fantastic sums on unnecessary weapons, as you note.

At the risk of venturing into “fever swamp” territory, a large number of our foreign policy elites are descendants of Ashkenazi Jews, who bring with them recent family memories of Russian antagonism and oppression. This is perhaps analogous to the Irish-American resentment of the United Kingdom (by which they mean England) and the English occupation and oppression of Ireland.

Although this does not rise to the level of strategy, or even simple greed, I feel it is an unspoken but very real component of America’s continued hostility to Russia.

Many commentators above have echoed this point. They are quite right. I would just like to add that there were two huge advantages of the Cold War:

1 – it justified very high tech, complex and secretive projects, costing a lot of money. Continuous low-tech warfare simply justifies the production of standard cheap trucks and rifles. Not so much profit going unexamined by auditors there…

2 – A Cold War means never actually having to do any fighting. All you need to do is claim that your systems are amazing. By contrast low-tech war means boots on the ground, losses, and occasional defeats. Perhaps more than occasional if you’re fighting in Afghanistan. Either way, it means embarrassing examinations by politicians.

In short, a Cold War is great for vested interests. Probably on both sides. I would not be at all surprised to find both Russian and American businessmen, intelligence and military staff all have a joint interest in returning to the 1980s…

“Russia’s military narrative contradicts dramatically to US hawks’ narrative rooted in American messianism and exceptionalism.”

There has also been a streak of messianism within Russian nationalism. Dostoyevsky wrote prophetically of a Russian Troika flying headlong across the world – which came substantially true within sixty years, though it was Soviet.

One might even say that even Stalin appreciated this sensibility – in drunken negotiations with Churchill, he could say to him as the basis for accord, “I disagree, but I can appreciate the spirit of that.”

I think there has genuinely been mutual exceptionalism at that most imaginative of times – that extraordinary walk in the forest in Iceland by Gorbachev and Reagan, beyond all expectations.

Andrew says: “It is messianic role of the United States (sometimes it goes under the name of American exceptionalism) and this messianic role (as most any messianic roles) has at its heart, as one of the major factors, one or another form of militarism and warrior tradition. United States IS not unique in this case, enough to take a look at the concept of the Third Rome (courtesy of Russia), Napoleon, early (Trotsky’s version) Soviet communism…”

Trotsky was hardly alone as a revolutionary internationalist in the early Soviet government. Lenin and most of the Bolsheviks were, as well. This is not surprising given that both wings of the Russian Social Democratic Party, Bolshevik and Menshevik, had been active members of the socialist Second International for years. The support of the majority of the member parties of the SI for their respective governments’ dragging their countries into World War One caused a crisis in the International in which both the Bolsheviks and Trotsky’s small group actively participated. And like many radicals of their day, many Russian socialists and anarchists had spent time in exile.

Lenin was as convinced as Trotsky that in order for the Russian Revolution to ultimately not just survive but succeed that socialist revolution needed to be won in more advanced countries, such as Germany. The Russo-Polish War is an example of Trotsky actually being more sober in his assessment of the possibility of revolutionary expansion than Lenin or, for that matter, virtually the entire Soviet leadership.

By the way, folks should remember that international sentiment and solidarity could be felt by non-radicals, as well. In 1917, Russian liberals (as defined at the time) and socialists sang “La Marseillaise” together in the Duma to celebrate the end of Czarism and the founding of a Russian Republic. And the crowned heads of Europe were known to close ranks when popular unrest threatened any one of them.

Serge says: “Believe me or not but I at todays Russia I feel more safe compared to US . I am literally anxious of being nearby close to your police – I feel they will shoot you down for putting your hand in the pocket or smth like this. Also we don’t have the death penalty in Russia or sentences like 200 year or 300 years in US.”

James Canning says: “George H. W. Bush had the strategic vision, and common sense, to see that amidst the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US should try to help the Russian Federation preserve its territorial integrity.”

One foreign policy issue where the Democrats used to be able to play the hawks vis-à-vis the Republicans was in US/USSR relations. Dems were often critical of the Nixon/Ford/Kissinger policy of Détente and provided most of the official support for the “Free Soviet Jewry” movement. The Carter Administration suckered the Soviets into directly intervening in Afghanistan and Democrats in Congress happily competed with the GOP in funding the Afghan mujahideen in the 80’s.

It is therefore not surprising that the Clinton Administration adopted a fundamentally anti-Russian policy, cloaked though it may have been in rhetorical support for democracy and self-determination. Like the British after World War I, who planned on reducing Russia to an economic and banking dependency, the Clinton Administration, much of the U.S. foreign policy establishment and virtually the entire U.S. ruling class seemed to want to put Russia “in its place” diplomatically (a quiet junior partner), militarilly (with NATO on its border) and economically (ripe for the pickings with state enterprises privatised and the economy dependent on resource extraction like a good third world country).

Ray says: “Our government should have lobbied for Russian admittance to NATO and the EU, forgiven the USSR’s foreign debts (a major contributor to the Russian economic and inflation crises of the 90s), negotiated general conventional and nuclear arms reduction in Europe, and given no harbor to Chechen terrorists.”

Actually, our government should have lobbied for the dissolution of NATO with the end of the Warsaw Pact, and it certainly shouldn’t have pushed for its expansion. For that matter, how is it the United States’ business to push for any country’s admitance into the European Union?

I totally agree with you on the forgiveness of Soviet foreign debts and negotiated reductions in both conventional and nuclear arms (too bad that the GOP constituency for the latter seems to have been reduced to a few former officials).

Lastly, why should our government have taken either side in the Chechen conflict? Americans, often independently of our government, have previously supported Sun Yat-sen in his campaign against the Chinese monarchy, the IRA in its wars for Irish Independence and unity, the Spanish Republic against Franco’s coup, the aforementioned Afghan mujahideen, the ANC and PAC against the aparthied government of South Africa, and both Left and Right in the Central American wars of the 1980’s. Whichever sides you or I may have supported in these various conflicts, even a Trotskyist SOB like me can appreciate the fact that American citizens used to be able to conduct their own personal foreign policies, so to speak. I think that kind of freedom was, is and will be a good thing.